davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Hello all, I am working on going over a transcription of Spiritual Refining Pt.2, Serm.12, and I have come across this section:
Paul did there openly profess, he had lived in all good conscience before God till that day, so that it seemed he had always a good conscience before God. But this assertion is no ways admitted: For 1. Paul speaks of himself, as a blasphemer, and the greatest of all sinners, till God had mercy on him, in that extraordinary conversion, acknowledging his estate wretched and damnable, till God had thus enlightened him, Rom. 7. He tells you how ignorant he was of the spiritual sense of the Law; That when the Law revived, viz. in the spiritual meaning of it, he died, he had no hope or comfort in himself: And as for that profession, of his walking with a good conscience, that may very well relate to that time of his life since his conversion to the Christian faith, for only of that time was he accused of his enemies: and further, a conscience may be said to be good two ways; Either first, Because directed and enlightened by the Scripture; as also, cleansed and washed by faith in Christ’s blood: so his conscience was not good. Or else secondly, Because it’s a quiet and comforted conscience, following that light and knowledge it hath, though it be altogether enormous; and thus Paul had a good conscience; and that might very well provoke Ananias, for if he had a good conscience, they had a bad one to accuse him.
I am thinking that "enormous" there should be "erroneous" but I dont want to change anything if it will mess up the text. In both SR I & II, I believe Burgess doesn't give detailed errata, but simply mentions that some things are amiss due to him not being near the printer. Those more theologically incline could possibly shed light on this, should I change it, or leave it as is? Thanks in advance for any help.
Here is another example where I think it should most likely be "erroneous."
He was not a cold frozen piece of earth, or a lukewarm Laodicean, but his love did burn as hot as fire: qui non zelat, non amat; no man loveth any Religion, or way thereof, that hath not zeal for it: and zeal is such a fire, that it assimilateth the zealous person into it, as our Savior said, The zeal of God’s house had eaten him up, Joh. 2:17, as fire devoureth every thing it worketh on. Thus Paul, if you do consider all the labor, pains and industry he used to persecute the Church, you must needs confess his zeal, he said, he was even mad against the Christians, Acts 26.11. Now this zeal, though it was enormous, yet it was in the general upon religious grounds: Thus it differed as much from Demetrius his zeal about Diana’s Temple, as elementary and culinary fire differ: for he was so zealous, only because, if the temple were destroyed, his trade and earthly gain would fall to the ground, because he made shrines for it: but Paul abhorreth such base unworthy respects....
EDIT - I believe I found my answer just a few paragraphs down.
That which was in Paul, and in all like Paul in an erroneous way, was, that their consciences though misled, did dictate to them such duties, such worship as they followed. Hence although they had not a zeal according to knowledge, viz. true, and instructed out of God’s word, yet they had a zeal according to their own knowledge: They did not live against any light within them, their consciences did not accuse them, but excuse in all that they did; and in this sense we may say, that many like Paul, in false and erroneous ways, do walk with a good conscience, if by good be meant a quiet, peaceable and satisfied conscience in what they do; although that doth not excuse...
Thank you all anyways.
Paul did there openly profess, he had lived in all good conscience before God till that day, so that it seemed he had always a good conscience before God. But this assertion is no ways admitted: For 1. Paul speaks of himself, as a blasphemer, and the greatest of all sinners, till God had mercy on him, in that extraordinary conversion, acknowledging his estate wretched and damnable, till God had thus enlightened him, Rom. 7. He tells you how ignorant he was of the spiritual sense of the Law; That when the Law revived, viz. in the spiritual meaning of it, he died, he had no hope or comfort in himself: And as for that profession, of his walking with a good conscience, that may very well relate to that time of his life since his conversion to the Christian faith, for only of that time was he accused of his enemies: and further, a conscience may be said to be good two ways; Either first, Because directed and enlightened by the Scripture; as also, cleansed and washed by faith in Christ’s blood: so his conscience was not good. Or else secondly, Because it’s a quiet and comforted conscience, following that light and knowledge it hath, though it be altogether enormous; and thus Paul had a good conscience; and that might very well provoke Ananias, for if he had a good conscience, they had a bad one to accuse him.
I am thinking that "enormous" there should be "erroneous" but I dont want to change anything if it will mess up the text. In both SR I & II, I believe Burgess doesn't give detailed errata, but simply mentions that some things are amiss due to him not being near the printer. Those more theologically incline could possibly shed light on this, should I change it, or leave it as is? Thanks in advance for any help.
Here is another example where I think it should most likely be "erroneous."
He was not a cold frozen piece of earth, or a lukewarm Laodicean, but his love did burn as hot as fire: qui non zelat, non amat; no man loveth any Religion, or way thereof, that hath not zeal for it: and zeal is such a fire, that it assimilateth the zealous person into it, as our Savior said, The zeal of God’s house had eaten him up, Joh. 2:17, as fire devoureth every thing it worketh on. Thus Paul, if you do consider all the labor, pains and industry he used to persecute the Church, you must needs confess his zeal, he said, he was even mad against the Christians, Acts 26.11. Now this zeal, though it was enormous, yet it was in the general upon religious grounds: Thus it differed as much from Demetrius his zeal about Diana’s Temple, as elementary and culinary fire differ: for he was so zealous, only because, if the temple were destroyed, his trade and earthly gain would fall to the ground, because he made shrines for it: but Paul abhorreth such base unworthy respects....
EDIT - I believe I found my answer just a few paragraphs down.
That which was in Paul, and in all like Paul in an erroneous way, was, that their consciences though misled, did dictate to them such duties, such worship as they followed. Hence although they had not a zeal according to knowledge, viz. true, and instructed out of God’s word, yet they had a zeal according to their own knowledge: They did not live against any light within them, their consciences did not accuse them, but excuse in all that they did; and in this sense we may say, that many like Paul, in false and erroneous ways, do walk with a good conscience, if by good be meant a quiet, peaceable and satisfied conscience in what they do; although that doth not excuse...
Thank you all anyways.
Last edited:
